무고등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
As to the misunderstanding of the facts of the grounds for appeal and the establishment of a gambling place by misapprehending the legal principles, it was not actually gambling in which D et al. conducted a fake gambling in order to pay the money of the defendant in the restaurant operated by the defendant, and the defendant was only provided a gambling place, and the defendant was not a resident and did not open a gambling place.
On the issue of false accusation, the defendant did not lend money to D, and there was no intention to report false facts.
The punishment of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Defendant and relevant persons’ statement in the investigative agency, and D were in the Defendant’s stand on the part of the Defendant, as to the assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles
52.8 million won (i.e., 40 million won in cash) evidence records of 9,357,516,518 or 52.9 million won in the form of a check (i.e., 12.9 million won in cash) evidence records of 12,150,000 won in the form of a check)
was stated.
On the other hand, D did not theft the Defendant’s money at an investigative agency (196 pages of evidence record) and borrowed the Defendant’s money totaling KRW 60 million from the damaged party, and the money actually received was KRW 57 million.
The testimony was made (Evidence Records 198, 199, 351) and the court of the court below also borrowed a total of KRW 57 million from the defendant to butt money.
was stated (203 pages of the trial record). D, together with D, gambling
E, in accordance with the statements of D in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, D does not steals the Defendant’s money (Evidence No. 457 pages of evidence) and continued to borrow money from the Defendant while gambling.
The statements were made (430 pages of evidence, 108 pages of trial records). The same gambling was made.
F also, at the investigative agency and the court of original instance, D has loaned money to the defendant at the time of gambling (135 pages of the trial record, 579 pages of the evidence record) but the defendant has lent money.